Hi!
> > > I still am not clear on why we would want s4bios in 2.5.x,
> > since we have S4.
> > > Like you said, S4bios is easier to implement, but since
> > Pavel has done much
> > > of the heavy lifting required for S4 proper, I don't see the need.
> >
> > Let me counter this, I have to admit that I didn't try the
> > patch yet, but
> > my laptop does S4 BIOS, and I'd definitely prefer that to
> > swsusp, since
> > it's much faster and also I somewhat have more faith into S4 BIOS than
> > swsusp (as in: after resuming, it'll most likely either work
> > or crash, but
> > not cause any weird kinds of corruption). Since it does not
> > need not much
> > more to support it than S3, I don't see why you wouldn't want to give
> > users the option?
>
> Ok that's reasonable.
>
> My belief is that S4bios is a stopgap measure until S4 gets better. That
> said, I think you are right - it should go in for now, and then at some
> point in the future someone will say, "S4bios?? who needs *that* anymore??"
> and it will get pulled out. ;-)
Thanx. I'm looking forward to see it merged.
Pavel
--
Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building,
cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic.

> From: Kai Germaschewski [mailto:kai@...]
> > I still am not clear on why we would want s4bios in 2.5.x,
> since we have S4.
> > Like you said, S4bios is easier to implement, but since
> Pavel has done much
> > of the heavy lifting required for S4 proper, I don't see the need.
>
> Let me counter this, I have to admit that I didn't try the
> patch yet, but
> my laptop does S4 BIOS, and I'd definitely prefer that to
> swsusp, since
> it's much faster and also I somewhat have more faith into S4 BIOS than
> swsusp (as in: after resuming, it'll most likely either work
> or crash, but
> not cause any weird kinds of corruption). Since it does not
> need not much
> more to support it than S3, I don't see why you wouldn't want to give
> users the option?
Ok that's reasonable.
My belief is that S4bios is a stopgap measure until S4 gets better. That
said, I think you are right - it should go in for now, and then at some
point in the future someone will say, "S4bios?? who needs *that* anymore??"
and it will get pulled out. ;-)
So I'll look to merge it, unless someone upstream beats me to it.
Regards -- Andy

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Grover, Andrew wrote:
> > From: Ducrot Bruno [mailto:poup@...]
> > This patch add s4bios support for 2.5.52.
> > echo 4 > /proc/acpi/sleep is for swsusp;
> > echo 4b > /proc/acpi/sleep is for s4bios.
>
> I still am not clear on why we would want s4bios in 2.5.x, since we have S4.
> Like you said, S4bios is easier to implement, but since Pavel has done much
> of the heavy lifting required for S4 proper, I don't see the need.
Let me counter this, I have to admit that I didn't try the patch yet, but
my laptop does S4 BIOS, and I'd definitely prefer that to swsusp, since
it's much faster and also I somewhat have more faith into S4 BIOS than
swsusp (as in: after resuming, it'll most likely either work or crash, but
not cause any weird kinds of corruption). Since it does not need not much
more to support it than S3, I don't see why you wouldn't want to give
users the option?
--kai

> From: Ducrot Bruno [mailto:poup@...]
> This patch add s4bios support for 2.5.52.
>
> S4bios is an alternative for the ACPI S4 system suspend
> state, but is a bit
> more easy to implement. It suppose though that the BIOS
> support this feature.
> For some BIOS, creating a so-called suspend partition with the help
> of lphdisk is OK.
>
> Plus, it permit for Pavel to have a nice graphic display at
> suspend/resume.
>
> echo 4 > /proc/acpi/sleep is for swsusp;
> echo 4b > /proc/acpi/sleep is for s4bios.
I still am not clear on why we would want s4bios in 2.5.x, since we have S4.
Like you said, S4bios is easier to implement, but since Pavel has done much
of the heavy lifting required for S4 proper, I don't see the need.
Regards -- Andy

This patch add s4bios support for 2.5.52.
S4bios is an alternative for the ACPI S4 system suspend state, but is a bit
more easy to implement. It suppose though that the BIOS support this feature.
For some BIOS, creating a so-called suspend partition with the help
of lphdisk is OK.
Plus, it permit for Pavel to have a nice graphic display at suspend/resume.
echo 4 > /proc/acpi/sleep is for swsusp;
echo 4b > /proc/acpi/sleep is for s4bios.
Cheers,
--
Ducrot Bruno
http://www.poupinou.org Page profaissionelle
http://toto.tu-me-saoules.com Haume page

I'm running linux 2.4.20- acpi 20021205.
First :
dmesg outputs the following warning :
Vendor "COMAPQ" System " EAGLES" Revision 0x6040000 has known ACPI BIOS
problem.
Someone knows where to find more information about this ?(don't send me to
compaq support site pleaz)
Second:
/proc/acpi/thermal_zone is there but empty. Is it Ok ? If not someone knows
how to fix it ? (I'm a bit worried 'bout this).
Third:
acpid is not working (I've not applied the apcpid.patch, thought it was
integrated ...). Is this a real problem or the only side-effect is that power
button will not work ?